Hi All. I've been printing b&w off and on since high school, in the late 1970's. I like it. It's just a nice thing to do. And it's now the focus of my career, which has been steadily less about shooting since the change to digital. I haven't yet seen direct file to paper prints, and I'm sure they're good, but I use an LVT film recorder to go from file back to neg. I found an affordable one, as they're dinosaurs. One day I'll post a tread to discuss the the differences between direct file to paper, vs file to LVT to paper, but that's not what this thread is about. My question has to do with film scanning, and now I'll go even deeper into the alternative. I recently experimented with scanning medium format negs and chromes with an old Phase One Photo Phase 4x5 scan back, and was very pleasantly surprised, except for scan line problems. The scan line problems are now moot, as I seem to have fried the whole unit attaching the scsi inadvertently while power was on. Fixing sadly seems impossible, I've looked inside, and Phase One won't touch it. So what to replace it with? I've read the, slightly less old, Power Phase FX possibly has higher resolution. Can anyone comment? Or have one without scan line problems, and want to get rid of it? (I know about the need for light source voltage stabilization with these units). The same questions go for the Betterlight/Dicomed, or even a flat bed that could be adapted? I should have already said the reason I liked the Photo Phase so much, apart from the quality of the scans, was workflow. Nothing was easier that simply laying it under my enlarging lens. And I didn't miss having dedicated scanning software at all. The imaging software pulled out the information, and Photoshop does absolutely everything else. So my question is about recommended scanners, to those who may have older ones, or had experience with them, that would truly do the job for medium format and 4x5 negs/chromes, projected via enlarger. Thanks so much.

If you had done a search, you would have found several threads on the subject. There are several recommendations on scanners. The most common in use today is the Epson V700/750. For the price, it would be tough to beat. Nikon had a nice medium format scanner, but it was like $2k, not made anymore. Several other brands.

Another option is to just use a high quality digital camera with a macro lens, and a repeatable light source behind your negative light stage. Shoot in Camera RAW to give you the most adjustment capabilities, and use Photoshop to flip from negative to positive.

You didn't mention in your OP that you had searched the forum. I don't care for your tone as a new comer.

Since you like old tech, consider looking for a working drum scanner. That would be your best option, if you can keep the thing running. Most shops quit using them as maintenance cost kept rising, and film volume dropped with the switch to digital cameras.

The quality of the results lays more with the experience and skill of the operator, than with the tech of the equipment.

If you are really into quality B&W prints, you might visit the B&W forum on the Yahoo groups.

I apologize to John for responding as I did. The Epson 750 doesn't suck, but in my experience with it it's not even close to the quality of the scan backs I mentioned. So on top of reading the assumption "If you had..." The quality of advice I was being given was in fact questionable to me, given the context and level of equipment I sighted. If it's my fault for not giving specs and familiarizing the group with that equipment than ok, but there are articles about scan backs on this site.

The scanner adequation is related to, among other things, the enlargement factor you target. I have and use the Epson V750 to scan B&W medium format. It is entirely satisfactory to print up to 12x18" from 6x7. I have not tried larger, since I don't ave a larger printer.

Keep in mind that scanning B&W with VueScan allows you to scan using only one colour channel, avoiding the resolution loss from approxiate colour registration. I get a solid 2400 ppi from the Epson.

Its softness makes it good for b&w negatives. Some scanners like the Old Minolta Multi Pro tend to exagerate the grain. That effect is limited with the Epson.

The Epson has become the best practical solution. It is still in production, its drive is maintained, you can get it repaired and get support.

As an alternative, you might want to take a look at the Plustek 120. It is a new scanner. It seems to have some early production quirks, but it should be closer to the Nikon scanners resolution-wise.

By the way, one can easily invert a negative scan in ACR. Take the curve, make it linear and invert its slope.

Keep in mind that scanning B&W with VueScan allows you to scan using only one colour channel, avoiding the resolution loss from approxiate colour registration. I get a solid 2400 ppi from the Epson.

Hi Stéphane,

The sensor of the V700/V750 is a staggered tri-linear sensor array. The 3 color channels are simultaneously scanned with a fixed pitch which is the fixed sensel pitch offset between the scan lines on silicon. So all three color channels are simultaneously scanned at exactly the identical spacing on silicon, for each line increment again. The only variable is the mechanical line increment by the stepper motor, but it is identical for each three color channels. The scanner reads 6 scan-lines (3 colors, with 2 half sensel staggered scan lines per color channel) per scan position.

Therefore there is no benefit to scanning a single color channel, on the contrary, because it throws away the possibility to average the 3 color channels and thus the possibility to reduce scanner noise by that averaging.

Quote

Its softness makes it good for b&w negatives. Some scanners like the Old Minolta Multi Pro tend to exagerate the grain. That effect is limited with the Epson.

Part of the softness is caused by the relatively diffuse light, which suppresses graininess. One should calibrate for the distance of the film above the glass platen, it can help to optimize resolution (as far as the lens is capable of it).